SIMPLICITY and transparency had been on the front of their minds throughout their work, the chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Finance Committee, Carl Hughes, said, updating the General Synod on the Tuesday concerning the review of diocesan funds.
The proposals were recommendations that had been made to the Triennium Funding Working Group to deal with the dioceses’ “bleak financial situation”.
The proposals included a rise of 1 third in Lowest Income Communities (LInC) funding. Mr Hughes felt “very strongly”, he said, about addressing the undeniable fact that only two-thirds of LInC funding was going to the 25 per cent most deprived parishes. A “light-touch” reporting framework was proposed.
The Council was conscious of an “acceleration of missional and financial challenges” for the reason that pandemic. “Dioceses are struggling to interact with longer-term strategic planning and are in crisis management mode.”
The proposals sought to supply “respiratory space” to enable dioceses to develop plans for longer-term mission health and sustainability. A sum of £200 million of time-limited support, over nine years, was proposed.
Diocesan apportionment had “had its day”, Mr Hughes said, and it was proposed to abolish it, in order that Votes 2-5 can be funded nationally.
Synodical consideration of national budgets could occur under the framework proposed within the National Church Governance Measure. A single ministry-training fund can be established, to which dioceses would contribute under a formula based on overall clergy and assets per capita. Maintenance arrangements can be enhanced and simplified.
When it got here to clergy pay, the national average stipend was about 6.5 per cent below what it will have been had it tracked inflation. Forty-two per cent of clergy reported financial stress. A normal national stipend was beneficial for incumbents, with related policies equivalent to standardised maternity provision.
Improving the national minimum stipend was also the quickest approach to increase pensions, Mr Hughes said. The Pensions Board had indicated that it will probably be possible to enhance advantages — but this is able to need to come back to the General Synod.
There were some “fundamental structural nettles that the Church really does need to understand if we’re going to right-size our physical and organisational structure to higher serve the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s Church”, Mr Hughes said. “A turnaround in financial health will only include improved long-term missional health and structural reform to cut back the overhead of historic structures not fit for today’s Church.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, asked whether the review group’s evaluation of the effect of proposals on individual dioceses can be communicated to dioceses. She was told that it will.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) asked whether dioceses would select dearer training pathways if the fee was to be shared nationally. Mr Hughes said that, “for the time being, if we could actually get more people to do any type of ordinand training, I believe there can be champagne corks popping.”
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) warned that the proposals is likely to be thought to be “top-down, and possibly destabilise dioceses which are coping for the time being”.
The Revd Jonathan Macy (Southwark), who chairs the National Estates Churches Network, expressed concern concerning the percentage of LInC attending to the poorest churches. This was “absolutely shocking”, he said. Could details be given about make sure that all of the funding reached the poorest parishes? Could a “big wood stick” be considered?
Mr Hughes responded: “I do know that everybody feels that there’s this huge weight of the centre of the Church imposing its will across the Church. We don’t have any power in any respect. I cannot require a diocese to do X, Y, or Z.” He, too, nonetheless, found it “disturbing” that 100 per cent of LInC was not reaching the poorest parishes.
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that accounts for 2023 and 2024 suggested that there had been a decrease in spending on parish ministry, and a two-per-cent increase in spending on diocesan support and administration. Ten per cent of stipendiary clergy were employed at diocesan headquarters. Could this trend be reversed?
Mr Hughes suggested that, when it got here to potential diocesan collaboration, it was “just insanity to maintain doing every little thing individually 42 times”.
Canon Liz Hassall (York) asked whether, when it got here to standardising policies, work already done, equivalent to the Clergy Babies audit, can be considered. She was told that it will.
The Revd Christopher Blunt (Chester) asked whether LInC might be paid on to parishes, and was told that this is able to not work in practice.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) spoke of a unbroken drawback of clergy retiring since 2021, given the years by which the stipend had not tracked inflation.
Debbie Buggs (London), a Crown Nominations Commission member, asked: “What interview query would you want us to ask potential bishops to evaluate their ability to balance the books at a diocesan level?” Mr Hughes suggested that “it’s mission that may actually solve a whole lot of the issues that I’m outlining to you.”
Billy-Jo O’Leary (Rochester) spoke of the necessity for accountability over LInC funding.
Canon Mark Miller (Durham) said: “I believe there’s a stick. I serve in essentially the most deprived parish in my diocese. . . You said you will have no power, but I believe your power is: unless this goes to the poorest parishes, you ain’t getting it next yr.”
Mr Hughes responded: “The most significant thing for dioceses to listen to is that Synod takes this extremely seriously, because that allows me to be very clear to our diocesan colleagues that accountability for LInC funding is something that we’re going to be very fastidiously.”
Penny Allen (Lichfield) asked whether LInC funding was going to be maintained, and whether reports from parish assessors would meet the requirement for reporting on how this was spent.
It can be inflation-adjusted annually, going forward, Mr Hughes said.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) asked whether the Church’s funds were “sufficiently dedicated to supporting the poorer parishes on this country and ensuring that the cure of souls is maintained there”.
Mr Hughes said: “I hope you do know that my absolute focus in every little thing that we do is on mission. I would like to see our Church grow, and I would like to see our parishes flourish. . . The focus is getting that cash to the front line, to our parishes. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding, I believe, about what SMMIB does. . . It’s not all nearly shiny latest things: it’s about revitalising parishes.”
